The Standards Committee meeting on 02 February 2026 focused on providing guidance to councillors regarding social media use and discussing upcoming statutory changes to the councillor standards regime. Key decisions included the noting of a draft social media policy for councillors and an update on anticipated legislative reforms that will introduce a mandatory code of conduct and enhanced powers for dealing with misconduct.

Social Media Guidance for Members

The committee discussed a draft social media policy designed to guide councillors on the appropriate use of social media platforms. Dr Paul Feild, Principal Governance and Standards Solicitor, presented the policy, highlighting that while guidance exists for council staff, there was no equivalent for elected members. The policy aims to clarify expectations, explain risks, and protect councillors from potential legal and reputational damage. It covers personal and professional use, the role of the Council's Communications Team, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), corporate social media accounts, emergency communications, and conduct during electoral periods.

Key points from the guidance include:

• Personal Responsibility: Councillors are personally responsible for their social media activity, ensuring it aligns with council policies and procedures. Accounts must be kept secure.
• Advisory Status: The policy is advisory, but adherence is expected and should be read alongside the Councillors' Code of Conduct and Internet Usage Policies.
• AI Caution: AI-generated content should be treated with caution, as it can be inaccurate. Councillors remain responsible for any AI material they post and must verify its accuracy and compliance with data protection and defamation laws.
• Avoiding Disrepute: Councillors must not post or share content that could bring the council into disrepute, damage its reputation, or is offensive or libellous. Confidential information must be safeguarded.
• No Adverse Comments: Personal social media should not be used to make adverse comments about council services or employees. Concerns should be raised through official channels.
• Trolling and Abuse: The guidance advises councillors not to engage with keyboard warriors or trolls who aim to provoke intemperate responses. Such individuals should be ignored, and serious threats or hate speech reported to the police.
• Support Available: Councillors experiencing online abuse or harassment can seek support from the Monitoring Officer.

During the discussion, Dr Feild clarified that AI should only be used as a starting point and never as a sole source of information. He also explained that recorded statements on social media could be considered libel, and councillors must adhere to the Nolan Principles¹ when making comments. Support for councillors facing online abuse is available through the Monitoring Officer, with serious criminal matters to be reported to the police.

The Localism Act 2011: Expectation of Statutory Changes to the Councillor Standards Regime

The committee received a briefing on anticipated statutory changes to the councillor standards regime, stemming from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government's document Strengthening the Standards and Conduct Framework – Consultation Results and Government Response. Dr Paul Feild explained that the government intends to legislate for a comprehensive reform of the current standards regime under the Localism Act 2011.

The proposed reforms include:

• Mandatory Code of Conduct: A single, mandatory code of conduct will be introduced for all local authority types and tiers, covering issues such as discrimination, bullying, and social media use.
• Formal Standards Committees: Principal authorities will be required to convene formal Standards Committees with provisions to ensure objectivity, accountability, and transparency.
• Support for Investigations: Both complainants and councillors subject to allegations will receive individual support during investigations.
• Right for Review: A local right for review will be introduced for both complainants and councillors to have cases reassessed.
• Powers of Suspension and Disqualification: Authorities will gain powers to suspend elected members for up to six months for serious code of conduct breaches, with the option to withhold allowances and impose premises bans. Interim suspension powers will also be introduced for serious allegations involving police investigations or safeguarding concerns. A new disqualification criterion will be established for members suspended twice within five years.
• National Appeals Function: A national appeals function will be created for decisions on suspension and allowance withholding, and for complainants who believe their case was mishandled. Appeals will only be permitted after the local right for review process is completed.
• Publication of Outcomes: All code breach investigation outcomes will be published to enhance transparency.

Dr Feild noted that these changes would likely require amendments to the Local Government Act 2000 and the Localism Act 2011, with legislation anticipated by late 2027. He highlighted that Barking and Dagenham Council is well-prepared for these changes, having already established a standalone Standards Committee and incorporated a public interest test and a duty to cooperate with investigations into its Code of Conduct. The committee noted the report, acknowledging the significant implications these reforms would have for the council's governance and constitutional arrangements.

Complaints Update

The committee received an update on complaints made against Members of the Council. Dr Paul Feild reported that over the past year, 12 complaints had been processed, with one ongoing investigation. He noted that complaints often increase in the lead-up to elections and that the Council's procedures are designed to dismiss vexatious or frivolous complaints through a public interest test.

Key points from the update included:

• Complaint Dismissal: Several complaints were dismissed due to lack of evidence, no reasonable prospect of success, being out of time, or not meeting the public interest test.
• Anonymity: The Council does not accept anonymous complaints against councillors, as this conflicts with the principle of natural justice, where an accused has the right to know their accuser. This is separate from the Council's Whistleblowing Policy.
• No Legal Obligation to Respond: Councillors are not legally obligated to respond to all emails, particularly if they are argumentative.
• Protection for Members: The Council is committed to assisting members and preventing witch hunts. Measures are in place to protect councillors from intimidation, including the non-publication of addresses in cases of real risk of physical violence.

The committee noted the report.